Pages

Friday, 5 April 2013

You claim that Mick Philpott’s behaviour is the result of being on
benefits. Then please explain the following by that theory. During Philpott’s
teenage years to the age of 21, he was employed in the army. For two years in
that period he dated a young girl named Kim Hill. When Philpott decided a dress
Kim was wearing was too short, he shot her in the groin with a crossbow. When
Philpott decided Kim wasn’t paying enough attention to him, he cracked her
kneecap with a hammer. When Kim dumped him, he stabbed her over a dozen times
as she lay in bed and when Kim’s mother tried to help Kim, he stabbed her as
well. At the age of 21, the fully employed Philpott was convicted of attempted
murder. Mr Osborne, Please explain how
(in your theory) the fully employed Philpott was somehow influenced by benefits
to behave like that towards Kim Hill and her mother.

The truth of Mick Philpott’s history of violence and abuse to people is
that whether he was on benefits or was fully-employed, he would still be the same immoral
person in either instance.

Here is another question for you Mr Osborne. How do you expect unemployed
people to be given work when you have tarred them with the same brush that you have used
on Mick Philpott to make anyone on benefits appear to be as bad as Jack the
Ripper?